Hanna Tigerstrand Grevnerts’s research while affiliated with Linköping University and other places

Background In the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, there is little evidence of when and why a decision for ACL reconstruction (ACLR) or nonoperative treatment (non-ACLR) is made. Purpose To (1) describe the key characteristics of ACL injury treatment decisions and (2) compare patient-reported knee instability, function, and preinjury activity level between patients with non-ACLR and ACLR treatment decisions. Study Design Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods A total of 216 patients with acute ACL injury were evaluated during the first year after injury. The treatment decision was non-ACLR in 73 patients and ACLR in 143. Reasons guiding treatment decision were obtained from medical charts and questionnaires to patients and orthopaedic surgeons. Patient-reported instability and function were obtained via questionnaires and compared between patients with non-ACLR and ACLR treatment decisions. The ACLR treatment group was classified retrospectively by decision phase: acute phase (decision made between injury day and 31 days after injury), subacute phase (decision made between 32 days and up to 5 months after injury), and late phase (decision made 5-12 months after injury). Data were evaluated using descriptive statistics, and group comparisons were made using parametric or nonparametric tests as appropriate. Results The main reasons for a non-ACLR treatment decision were no knee instability and no problems with knee function. The main reasons for an ACLR treatment decision were high activity demands and knee instability. Patients in the non-ACLR group were significantly older ( P = .031) and had a lower preinjury activity level than did those in the acute-phase ( P < .01) and subacute-phase ( P = .006) ACLR decision groups. There were no differences in patient-reported instability and function between treatment decision groups at baseline, 4 weeks after injury, or 3 months after injury. Conclusion Activity demands, not patient-reported knee instability, may be the most important factor in the decision-making process for treatment after ACL injury. We suggest a decision-making algorithm for patients with ACL injuries and no high activity demands; waiting for >3 months can help distinguish those who need surgical intervention from those who can undergo nonoperative management. Registration NCT02931084 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Background: When deciding medical treatment, patients' perspectives are important. There is limited knowledge about patients' views when choosing non-operative treatment or anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) after ACL injury. Purpose: To describe reasons that influenced patients' decisions for non-operative treatment or ACLR after ACL injury. Study design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: This study recruited a total of 223 patients (50% men), aged 28 ± 8 years who had sustained ACL injury, either unilateral or bilateral. Subjects were, at different time points after injury, asked to fill out a questionnaire about their choice of treatment, where an ACLR treatment decision was made, some responded before and some after the ACLR treatment. A rating of the strength of 10 predetermined reasons in their choice of treatment graded as 0 (no reason) to 3 (very strong reason), was done. Results: Patients with unilateral ACL injury treated with ACLR (110 patients) rated "inability to perform physical activity at the same level as before the injury due to impaired knee function" (96%), "fear of increased symptoms during activity" (87%) and "giving way episodes" (83%) as strong or very strong reasons in their treatment decision. Patients with bilateral ACL injury treated with ACLR (109 knees) rated similar reasons as patients with unilateral ACLR and also "low confidence in the ability to perform at the preinjury activity level without ACLR" (80%) as strong or very strong reasons. Patients with unilateral ACL injury treated non-operatively (46 patients) rated "advice from clinician" (69%) as a strong or very strong reason. Patients with bilateral ACL injury treated non-operatively (25 knees) rated "absence of giving way episodes" (62%), and "no feeling of instability" (62%) as strong or very strong reasons. Conclusion: Inability to perform physical activity, fear of increased symptoms, and giving way episodes were reasons that patients with ACL injury considered when making decisions about ACLR. When choosing non-operative treatment, patients considered the absence of instability or giving way symptoms, being able to perform physical activity, and advice from clinicians. Level of evidence: 4.

Introduction Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury can result in joint instability, decreased functional performance, reduced physical activity and quality of life and an increased risk for post-traumatic osteoarthritis. Despite the development of new treatment techniques and extensive research, the complex and multifaceted nature of ACL injury and its consequences are yet to be fully understood. The overall aim of the NACOX study is to evaluate the natural corollaries and recovery after an ACL injury. Methods and analysis The NACOX study is a multicentre prospective prognostic cohort study of patients with acute ACL injury. At seven sites in Sweden, we will include patients aged 15–40 years, within 6 weeks after primary ACL injury. Patients will complete questionnaires at multiple occasions over the 3 years following injury or the 3 years following ACL reconstruction (for participants who have surgical treatment). In addition, a subgroup of 130 patients will be followed with clinical examinations, several imaging modalities and biological samples. Data analyses will be specific to each aim. Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the regional Ethical committee in Linköping, Sweden (Dnr 2016/44-31 and 2017/221–32). We plan to present the results at national and international conferences and in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Participants will receive a short summary of the results following completion of the study. Trial registration number NCT02931084.

PurposeThe purpose of the study was to (1) study and compare the factors that Swedish orthopaedic surgeons and physical therapists consider important for recommending ACL reconstruction and, (2) to assess how orthopaedic surgeons and physical therapists consider their own and each others, as well as patients’, roles are in the treatment decision. MethodsA web-based survey assessing the relevance of 21 predetermined factors, in the choice to recommend ACL reconstruction, was sent to orthopaedic surgeons and physical therapists. Respondents were also asked to rate the importance of the assessment made by themselves, the other clinician (physical therapists rated the importance of surgeons, surgeons rated the importance of physical therapists), and the patients’ preferences. ResultOrthopaedic surgeons agreed of eight, and physical therapists of seven factors as important in the choice to recommend ACL reconstruction. The factors both groups reported as important were; “patient’s wishes to return to contact/pivoting sports”, “instability in physical activity”, “instability in activities of daily living despite adequate rehabilitation”, “physically demanding occupation”, and “young age”. Both professions rated their own and each others assessments as well as patient’s wishes as important for the decision to recommend ACL reconstruction. Conclusion Orthopaedic surgeons and physical therapists agree about factors that are important for their decision to recommend ACL reconstruction, showing that both professions share a common ground in perceptions of factors that are important in recommending ACL reconstruction. Level of evidenceDiagnostic study: Level III.

Purpose: To translate to Swedish language and cross-culturally adapt the IKDC-SKF, and test the measurement properties of the Swedish version of IKDC-SKF in ACL-injured patients undergoing reconstruction surgery. Methods: The translation and cross-cultural adaption was performed according to guidelines. 76 patients with an ACL injury filled out the IKDC-SKF and other questionnaires before ACL reconstruction and at 4, 6 and 12 months after surgery. 203 patients from the Swedish ACL-Registry, participated at 8 months post-operative. Measurement properties were tested according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Results: The Swedish IKDC-SKF had high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha= 0.90) and test retest reliability (ICC2,1 = 0.92, CI 95%: 0.81- 0.97, P < .001). A single factor solution accounted for 46.1% of the variance in IKDC-SKF scores. Criterion validity was moderate to high. All ten predefined hypotheses for hypothesis testing were confirmed. The six hypotheses for responsiveness testing were confirmed. The effect size was 1.8 and the standardized response mean was 1.9, the Minimal Clinically Important Difference was 13.9 points. Conclusion: The Swedish version of the IKDC-SKF had good measurement properties and can be recommended for use in a population of ACL deficient patients undergoing ACL reconstruction. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.